Baythan

Thanks! David You may need to adjust some options to show more patches (under Settings) and/or select 'Complete' at the top of the menu.

No, the barn isn't a huge issue. I just think it's an amusing bit that helps tell the story of who the Kerbals are and what they are like. I have my own ideas of what they are like as a species, as I'm sure many people do. I'm also certain there are people that don't give a crap who the Kerbals are, they want modern looking buildings and a realistic Spaceflight sim. I choose to believe that Harvester has an idea of who they are and what they are like and the barn plays into that. KSP is about rockets and orbital physics and all of that, but it's supposed to be FUN and often funny as well. If I didn't like Jeb, Bob and Bill as much as I do, more of my rockets would be crazy designs that are as likely to destroy KSC as they are to reach orbit. Instead I prefer crazy rockets that reach other orbital bodies but are in NO way practical for a real space agency, and to me THAT is exactly what KSP is about. I am hoping those Win64-bit issues get fixed because I currently run on Win 7 64-bit and would LOVE to make full use of my PC's power. As it stands, I can play the game rather well, until I get too many mods adding too many extra parts combined with conflicts tossing in NaNs and NullRefs. But hey, the game is still Beta Than Ever.

When the response to a suggestion thread is something along the lines of "There's more important stuff to finish first!" it seems to me that the responder doesn't understand a basic principle of the suggestion forums: This is a place to discuss things we would like to see sometime in the future if the developers have the time/patience/inclination. MANY of us take part in MULTIPLE suggestion threads that we feel are worthy of discussion and do not feel the need to step into other suggestions and say they are unimportant. Nobody here is saying "Bring this feature out first at the expense of all other features." If you have suggestions for things you would like to see added, changed, or removed then feel free to search the forum for a similar thread and add your voice there or create a new thread if there is not an existing topic for the one you wish to add to. YES, there are some more optimizations that need to be done (they are working on those and have been for quite some time, but Unity has a few issues THEY need to work out first before Squad can make some of the fine-tuning adjustments many of us would like). As for being unplayable on a modern PC? I'm running a PC with an AMD Phenom II X6 processor and 16 GB of RAM, KSP runs rather well once I take into account that there are issues with my specific processor and Unity. I just have to run the game with a single launch option enabled. You wouldn't happen to be trying to play the 64-bit version of the game, would you? Unity only recently got their engine working with 64-bit, so KSP is understandably a bit behind in that area. Back to the matter at hand, there WAS a barn already. Some people thought the textures were bad (possibly even horrible), and they were probably right because those textures weren't finished yet. These problems were seen in a development state and were NOT released to the public, only shown during (I believe) SQUADCast. People complained, a LOT. The barn was pulled from development, never finished, and now we have a series of rather bland buildings in our career games when we could have had a funny little barn. Because a vocal group got it pulled while the rest of us were not paying attention, we are here to add our voices to the call to bring it back (finished, of course). The discussion to bring back the barn in no way detracts from the discussions to improve other aspects of the game. KSp has been in an Alpha state for a number of years now, and has only just reached the Beta stage where it will be for an unknowable amount of time. Squad is not in a hurry to 'finish' the game, so there is no call to worry about them dropping the ball now.

I kinda like it, later tiers having some of that glass-dome 'future' look.

Interesting ideas and all, but this is rather offtopic for this thread. There are other threads (some rather old, some not so old) for discussing redesigning how and why science is gathered and what it is used for. While a redesign of science is a great idea and should probably be done in conjunction with the changing of the tech tree, this thread is about changing the tech tree. Right now the tech tree is set up in a rather arbitrary system of nodes with somewhat random items in each node and was designed with the parts as balanced for Sandbox gameplay. We are (or were) discussing ideas on how to fix the current tech tree and make it less arbitrary and provide more freedom of choice to the player. We don't want it to be really complex, but more freedom means more nodes and more targeted paths to specific parts. I think it would be GREAT if Squad did a redesign of the tech tree, but as far as saying what is a higher priority: tech tree redesign, science system changes, or part balancing... that is all a matter of opinion. The science system is not dependent on the tree, nor is the shape of the tree dependent on the science system so either one could be done without changing the other, but changes to both would go well together. Part rebalancing would obviously change the tech tree, but a better layout of the tree itself would help with placing rebalanced parts in more intuitive nodes. P.S. - Saying "the cart is before the horse" over and over again isn't helping if you don't give any argument about what the horse is. If you think the science system needs to be changed first, find one of the threads about the science system and try to get people to discuss it there. Many of us here want more than just this one change and we aren't saying "Hey SQUAD, drop everything and fix the tech tree before you do anything else!" We are putting forth the opinion that among the MANY things we would like to see modified in this Beta stage, the tech tree is one and here are some ideas about how it could be done. We are also active in other threads with our opinions on how THOSE things could be made better as well.

I've noticed in the debug if I try to use the 'Focus on Vessel' button in the node editor window, when it doesn't work I get a NullRef error: [Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object Still haven't been able to replicate this consistently and I guess it's not a super huge problem because I haven't even tried to make sure its not just a mod conflict. Just kinda odd to be an intermittent problem.

I REALLY like the idea of this mod and Trajectories working together, as I use both and try to drop my expended stages as close to KSC as possible anyway. As it is, trying to get a stage to recover 'near' KSC is hard if it isn't coming in at a nearly vertical descent path because of some apparent inaccuracies in KSP's handling of item location at deletion. If SR instead used Trajectories to calculate the landing location, saved that information and deleted/recovered the object on its own to get around the flawed code then I'd be a happy camper, as would many other people I think.

I use blizzy's toolbar, but I don't believe it is required. There SHOULD be an icon on the stock toolbar, but possibly only in the VAB/SPH and in flight.

Version numbers also help, especially if you are not running KSP 0.90 and StageRecovery 1.5.3.

I've been an anti-space junk player for a long time now, so I try to design all my missions to not leave anything in orbit that isn't part of a station or satellite (and these are designed to be de-orbited and recovered when they become outdated). Early in career this is hard to do, so when that claw becomes available I design and launch an orbital debris cleanup craft that grabs stuff and puts it into a de-orbit path. From then on it's all about orbital refueling and/or free-return trajectories around Mun and Minmus so transfer stages come back and get recovered. I love this mod because I get some of my money back for these dropped stages, increasing the return from contracts.

Pictures! Yes! Why would a bunch of nerds that play a space simulator NOT want to see pictures of real space stuff? Even those of us who have visited such places in the past (I've only been to Johnson Space Center in Houston).

If your chutes are burning up because of DRE, which is a common issue, most of us just suggest opening them at a much lower altitude. This can be a bit difficult to judge as different vessels will slow down at different rates, but its the best option. Generally speaking, you'd want to stop heating up due to atmospheric friction before opening chutes in real life anyway so this just adds even more realism to your game. Also, have you tried changing the material for the drogue chute? I believe the three materials are available for drogues as well as main chutes. If they are not, ask Chris to add in a tougher material for drogue chutes that doesn't burn up as easily.

In regards to your question on the other thread, I'd say descending is a good way to set things up.

I'm having this same issue, though mine is not an unmodded install. I have a test install of KSP used for testing dev version of mods. This KSP version was made by copying my steam install of KSP to a new directory and creating a shortcut to Launcher.exe on my desktop. When I open the launcher and hit play, it launches the KSP_x64.exe instead of the x32 version (confirmed by the game giving me the x64 bit warning on load and Task manager says KSP_x64 is running). If I open the launcher, open the settings, close the settings, THEN hit play it will launch the x32 bit version of the game as I do NOT have the x64 bt option selected in the settings. I am running a 64-bit version of windows, so I'm wondering if theres some fault in the launcher detecting this and launching the corresponding version of the game. If I tell the launcher to not show me the launcher again, it will open the 64 bit version of the game no matter what I do.

I'm saddened that this turned out to be too many nodes for the current tech canvas. Methinks greater effort on our (the community) part to get SQUAD to work on this would be a great idea.

Did you properly install hyperedit? What game version are you running? What Hyperedit version are you running? Which KAS version did you install?

Yes. ALL mods that come bundled with ModuleManager do so because they require MM in order to function properly.

Agreed. Once there is a tree we like, if the parts get modified, just switch them around a bit to rebalance the tree.

https://github.com/KospY/KAS/wiki/Installation Almost all mods are installed in a very similar manner. Download the file, read the installation instructions, then put the files in the .zip archive into the KSP directory(if the zip has a GameData folder) or put them into the GameData folder (if the zip has only folders named for the mod). The KAS 0.4.10 zip file has a GameData folder in it, so just unzip the download into the KSP directory.

Well, I'm not sure it would be a re-work of Tier 1 as the addition of Tier 0, as that tier was removed before the release of 0.90 because of the complaints. Also, because KSp is now in BETA, they will be working all over the place on all parts of the game that currently exist. I'm not demanding they bring back the barn FIRST, I'm just throwing my vote in that it should come back. There are discussions all over this board about what people want to see changed/added/improved, and as I happen to agree with this one as well as many others, I am letting my opinion be heard in the ones I agree with. We welcome those that disagree as well, but to call this discussion ridiculous is to call ALL similar threads ridiculous. The game is still in development and many of us who really enjoy the game are letting our voices be heard about how we would like to see it go forward. We won't all get what we want, but we enjoy discussions of what we DO like and maybe we'll get what we want as a Mod instead.

It should. I haven't gotten to them yet, so I don't know for certain.

Instead? If SQUAD only had one person working on this game, that might be a valid argument. As they have a whole team, some of which are graphics design and others that do the programming and systems design, I think they can work on both at the same time. Though if asked whether I would prefer the Barn or Science revamp and had to pick one, I'd direct the questions to the Tech Tree and Parts discussion as my #1 priority. Changing the way the Tech tree is laid out to better give choice back to the player would also (probably) necessitate a change to the science methods and numbers.

What's this about it saying it doesn't work with FAR?

Module Manager is what allows mods to add/remove/change the modules on other parts without overwriting the original part files, but its not a Mod in and of itself, it's a .dll file that most mod authors release with their mods that use/require it. As for the KAS errors... I have no idea.

If KAS isn't working with MM 2.5.4 & 2.5.6 then it needs to be updated (KAS, that is), because many other mods are using the later versions and as far as I've been told, only the newest version will load if there are multiple in the GameData folder. If you don't have the Module Manager .dll in your GameData folder, then a lot of mods would not be working correctly.